ncloud_get_vpc_peering_detail

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds little behavioral context beyond 'detailed information' and does not mention response structure, pagination, or error behavior. With annotations covering the primary safety trait, a neutral score is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler words, and every word contributes to clarity. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-detail tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states the tool's function and required identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention the relationship to list_vpc_peerings or what the returned 'detailed information' includes, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'vpcPeeringInstanceNo', which is already described as 'VPC Peering instance number to query'. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific VPC Peering instance'), clearly indicating this is a detail-fetch operation for a single peering. It distinguishes from sibling 'list_vpc_peerings' by emphasizing 'specific', making the tool's scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The usage is implied: to retrieve details for a known VPC Peering instance number. However, there is no explicit when-to-use advice, mention of prerequisites (e.g., obtaining the instance number from list_vpc_peerings), or exclusion of alternatives. This earns a 'implied usage' score rather than higher.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.